Lynne,
Thanks for your careful reading and comments. I'll give a detailed reply
later on any points that might warrant, but it all looks good at first
quick reading.
-Lofton.
At 11:22 AM 1/23/02 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>The following are my comments and suggestions for the Framework
>Introduction, (18 Jan 2002)
>
>1. Section1.2 - 4th para, last few sentences
>Replace "And even those WGs which have..." to the end of the paragaph.
>Since, not really re-inventing their processes, they are starting from
>scratch, but reinventing what others have already done. Suggest::
>Moreover, these efforts are distributed throughout W3C, making it
>difficult or at least time consuming for WGs pursuing their QA goals to
>find and take advantage of what has already been done. Each WG has
>started from scratch, researching the numerous existing TS activities and
>defining their own processes, operational framework and technical
>deliverables.
>2. Section 3.1
>Reword, so that all bullets are ‘parallel’
>Â· Working Groups at all stages of maturity, ranging from newly
>created (i.e., just chartered), to mature, to extended (i.e., re-chartered);
>Â· Specifications at all stages of document progression (i.e.,
>Process REC-Track), ranging from First Working Draft through REC, post-REC
>errata processing and subsequent edition publication;
>Â· Conformance test materials of all types (i.e., described in
>[TAXONOMY]), ranging from content validators to test suites and tools for
>products, interfaces, and APIs;
>Â· QA Experience in developing test materials, ranging from minimal
>to significant;
>Â· Resources for developing test materials, ranging from insufficient
>staffing levels to staffing levels commensurate for the QA delverables;
>Â· Venue for Development of test materials, ranging from intra-WG
>development to combination of WG and external organization to external
>organization development of complete test material.
>
>3. Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph
>Remove. This info is unstable (i.e., will be changing) and should be in
>the Status section. (that is how its done in WAI Guidelines)
>
>4. Sections 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5 should all be written in the
>same manner (parallel structure and info) For example: structure each to
>address (1) target audience, (2) objective (taken from document’s abstract
>or intro) and brief list of topics in the document, (3) when and why read
>this document. Additionally, the bullet list of what each document covers
>should also be ‘parallel’ in their depth and breath.
>
>5. Section 3.4.3 Suggest changes:
>“This document is primarily targeted to people explicitly involved in QA
>activities. This includes both those within the W3C Working Groups (as
>mentioned in the previous section) as well as others from organizations
>external to the W3C involved in developing test materials.
>
>The goal of this document is to present procedural and operational
>guidelines for groups undertaking conformance materials development. The
>document contains information about:
>Â· Process considerations and tasks for incorporating QA related
>activities within the Working Group
>Â· Operational activities for building conformance test suites and tools
>Â· Resource considerations for staffing QA effort
>Â· Interaction between WGs and QA Activity and between WGs and
>external organizations developing conformance materials
>Â· IPR issues
>
>Supplementing the Process and Operational Guideline is a companion
>document, Technique and Examples. The Process and Operational Technique
>and Examples document provides examples and pointer to existing QA work,
>illustrating the principles and guidelines set forth in the Process and
>Operational Guideline.
>
>These documents should be considered required reading for anyone involved
>in launching, taking over, or maintaining QA-related work.
>
>6. Actually, reading Section 4, I’m thinking that some of the above
>belongs in Section 4 in particular, the (#2) target audience and (#3)
>when and why read this document. Right now, the sections are somewhat
>redundant
>
>7. Section 4.1.3, 1st para I’m confused as to what this says. Can
>you clarify this.
>
>
>--Lynne
>